Case law

United States v. Sheldon & Co.

2 Ct. Cust. 485 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1912

It varies in colour from pale amber to dark red-brown. … The board held that it was entitled to free entry as crude sago. In Littlejohn v. United States (119 Fed.

In re Fischer

57 F.2d 371 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1932

The rejection by the board was upon the theory that, in view of Brown, the appellant had already received a patent for all his patentable disclosure in his said prior patent 1597273. … (Patents) 808, 45 F. (2d) 918; Potts v. Creager, 155 U. S. 597 . The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

United States v. Lawrence & Co.

10 Ct. Cust. 177 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 23, 1920

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest, and the Government appealed. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Saunders v. Browne

117 F.2d 547 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 17, 1941

Thereafter, on December 31, 1937, the party Browne’s appeal in interference No. 72,345 was dismissed by the Board of Appeals, the board stating that its action was taken “in view of the decision of the First Assistant Commissioner … Blackford v. Wilder, 28 App. D. C. 535; Horine v. Wende, 29 App. D. C. 415; Carroll v. Hallwood, 31 App. D. C. 165; In re Marconi, 38 App. D. C. 286; The New Departure Manufacturing Company v. Robinson, 39 App. D.

United States v. Goldberg's Sons

3 Ct. Cust. 282 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 17, 1912

Brown v. Piper ( 91 U. S., 37, 42 ), Jones v. United States ( 137 U. S., 202, 216 ), Nelson v. Cushing ( 2 Cush., 519 , 532, 533), Page v. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Stegemann v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 393 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 18, 1914

Benjamin Iron & Steel Co. v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 159 ; T. D. 31677); Gage Bros. & Co. v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 427 ; T. D. 32174); Frank v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 85 ; T. … D. 31633); United States v. Park ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 352 ; T. D. 32907).

United States v. Shallus & Co.

9 Ct. Cust. 168 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 18, 1919

Brown v. Maryland ( 12 Wheat., 419 ); May v. New Orleans ( 178 U. S., 496, 507 ). … The decision of the board is reversed, and case remanded for trial.

United States v. Schwartz

3 Ct. Cust. 24 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 12, 1912

In construing another section of the Federal statutes the court, in United States v. Phelps. (17 Blatch., 312; 27 Fed. … This case was followed upon this point in United States v. Leng (18 Fed.

United States v. Fensterer & Ruhe

2 Ct. Cust. 368 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 6, 1911

There was no evidence taken before the board, and there are no exhibits filed. However, the parties agree that the merchandise in question is exactly similar to that involved in the case of Fensterer & Ruhe v. … This decision rested upon the authority of Dinglestedt v. United States (91 Fed. Rep., 112), decided in 1898, and United States v. Downing ( 201 U. S., 354 ), decided in 1906.

In re Waite

158 F.2d 291 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 9, 1946

The board did not refer specifically to either of the publications, but it did expressly hold that the Brown patent “is not a proper reference.” … The board said, “The *730 rejection on Brown is not affirmed,” but it specifically agreed with the rejection on either Waite or Flett.

In re Wuertz

110 F.2d 854 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1940

(Patents) 1181, 48 F. (2d) 657, and cases therein cited; Berman v. Rondelle, 22 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1049, 75 F. (2d) 845. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Application of Kebrich

201 F.2d 951 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 6, 1953

The lead contents and colours of the solids were: after two recrystallisations, 46.4%, light brown; four, 45.4%, light brown; five, 43.6%, buff; seven, 37.6%, white (PbSt2 requires 26.8% Pb; PbSte, PbO, *953 41.6%; PbSt2,2PbO … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

Ray v. Kronmiller

167 F.2d 518 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 6, 1948

See Erben v. Yardley, 267 Fed. 345 , 1920 C. D. 220; Isaac Stern and Jacob Huether v. Louis H. Schroeder and Joshua Wagner, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 690, 36 F. (2d) 518, 3 U. S. Pat. Q. 351; Albert Broadmeyer v. … The situation here presented is similar to that in the case of Schuster v. Brown, 21 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 932, 69 F. (2d) 373, 21 U. S. Pat. Q. 11.

Vandiver v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 505 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1912

United States v. Meadows ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 143 ; T. D. 31665); Seeberger v. Hardy ( 150 U. S., 420 ). … Ross v. Peaslee ( 20 Fed. Cas., 1241, 1242 ).

United States v. Southern Paper Co.

12 Ct. Cust. 250 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 9, 1924

It is therefore clear that if the case is governed by the former enactment and not by the latter the board’s judgment must be reversed. • In the recent cases of Brown & Co. v. United States ( 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 26 ; T. … D. 40026), Scaramelli v. United States (12 id. 134 ; T. D-40056), United States v. Neuman & Schwiers Co. (12 id. 207; T.

Wells, Fargo & Co. v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 125 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1917

The board relied for its authority upon the case of Bour & Bouillon (T. D. 16422), affirmed in Bour v. … On appeal, Bour v.

Kennedy v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 347 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 4, 1924

The cases cited in appellants’ brief, Brennan v. United States ( 136 Fed. 743 ), United States v. American Bead Co. ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 132 ; T. D. 36466), and Smith and Co. v. United States ( 5 Ct. Cust. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Abell Forwarding Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 597 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 13, 1926

In this hearing, the Board of General Appraisers is not at all limited or bound by what some administrative officer may think about the matter which the board, alone, must, under the law, determine. … United States v. Lippmann et al., 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 336 ; Brown & Co. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 26 ; United States v. Stegemann, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 198 ; Balfour, Guthrie & Co. v. United States, 12 Ct.

Cunard Steamship Co. v. United States

22 C.C.P.A. 615 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 4, 1935

The trial court in its decision relied upon our decision in the case of United States v. American Brown Boveri Electric Corporation, 17 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 329, T. D. 43776. … D. 42217, not cited in the Brown Boveri case, supra, supports in principle the construction given in the latter case to the phrase “to be used exclusively as models.” In Bentner v.

In re George

68 F.2d 571 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 12, 1934

The only references discussed by the Board of Appeals with respect to the claims on appeal are the Nead and Browne references, and we are of the opinion that these are the only references which are material to the questions … In such case there would clearly be no invention; but appellant insists, and as hereinafter noted the Board of Appeals conceded, that the treatment of steel sheets shown by the reference Browne, upon which the board relied